Hi all,
I see that Adam has taken his discussion of the Keyspan firmware over to
this list (you might have warned me Adam :)
Anyway, to try to clear up some misconceptions I've seen in the
archives:
- the file keyspan_pda_fw.h is under the GPL. Is is a compiled
image of the key
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Since this Keyspan license seems to be objectionable, what kind of
> license can/should a company put on its binary firmware image that
> has to be included in the Linux kernel. They can't/will not put GPL
> on the binary image, as we/Linus ha
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your thoughts on the Keyspan license issue.
I'm a bit concerned that Keyspan are being painted as the "bad guys" here -
for better or worse (seemingly the latter :) they were relying on me for
guidance as to how best to walk the line between helping out and protecting
their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> "mere aggregation" does not include linking. "mere aggregation"
> implies *just* aggregation, and not combination. It's what you do
> when you make a CD with a bunch of different programs.
If this is the problem we have a lot other problems.
> - the file keyspan_pda_fw.h is under the GPL. Is is a compiled
> image of the keyspan_pda.S in the same directory
> (drivers/usb/serial in the kernel tree.) This is a wonderful
> achievement by Brian Warner who wrote his own firmware to
> control this devic
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:50:43PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> - The license on the files keyspan_usa*_fw.h is the only files
> effected by the Keyspan license. This license was drawn up by
> Keyspan's lawyers after consulting other firmware licenses in
> the kernel, talk
begin Walter Landry quotation:
> For those who don't have a copy of the kernel tree hanging around,
> that file says
>
> These microcode data are placed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License.
>
> We would prefer you not to distribute modified versions of it and
> not to ask
> - Since this Keyspan license seems to be objectionable, what kind of
> license can/should a company put on its binary firmware image that
> has to be included in the Linux kernel. They can't/will not put GPL
> on the binary image, as we/Linus has been saying for quite some time
>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:33:09AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Copyright (c) 1995-2000 FORE Systems, Inc., as an unpublished work.
> This
This is what gets me. It's being distributed, in some cases by
permanant media, to millions of random people, and it's unpublished?
--
David Starner
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:33:09AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> An interesting hypothetical question is: what if there is no source
> code? While impractical, I could quite concievably write a program just
> by entering its machine code into a hex editor. How would the GPL's
> restrictions bind me
/*
I don't think this got to the list because I wasn't subscribed :)
-Hugh
*/
-FW: Re: Keyspan Firmware fun-
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:04:26 +1000 (EST)
From: Hugh Blemings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
C
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:11:33AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The GPL defines source code in section 3:
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>making modifications to it."
>
> It doesn't address the question of _whose_ preferred form, but I think
> that
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:54:02PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Following may be useful as a reference point for the copyright law.
>
> If I remember correctly, basic shape of glyph is not be copyrighted
> since it is common to all fonts and should be legible. Also for dot
> matrix fonts, mere coin
> There are lots of firmware images in your computer that don't have a
> OpenSource license on them, just that now some of these devices
> require the host to send the image to them before they can work
> properly.
certainly... host adapters, hard drives, motherboards, video cards, storage
devices
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 07:23:41PM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> certainly... host adapters, hard drives, motherboards, video cards, storage
> devices, digital cameras, etc. all have firmware that most likely contains a
> lot of juicy information about the hardware that vendors may want to keep
> se
> They are sadly mistaken if they think that releasing binary-only
> firmware will keep these secrets.
true... it's a case of whatever turns them on though... most are too scared
of open source to take it seriously (and don't realise that in hardware land
the two are often very similar).
> By the
Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
>this list (you might have warned me Adam :)
You told me that you would to be convinced only by a lawyer,
Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox. I took that as an indication that you
did not want me to involve you in discussions with anyone else
on this issue.
Als
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:14:13PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > Why is newsgate in the non-free archive? I realize that there's no
> > clear license attached to it, but the snippets of licenses that appear
> > in some pieces of c
[sorry for the broad CC]
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 07:23:41PM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> > There are lots of firmware images in your computer that don't have a
> > OpenSource license on them, just that now some of these devices
> > require the host to send the image to them before they can work
>
> What about if the preferred form changes? For example, you have two
> authors, one who keeps the program as a literate program and the
> other one who keeps it as straight source, and they convert it whenever
> they exchange code. Is the preferred form literate or illiterate? Can
> the literate
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:14:13PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > > Why is newsgate in the non-free archive? I realize that there's no
> > > clear license attached to it, but the snippets of licenses that appear
> > > in some p
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:47:22PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> > What about if the preferred form changes? For example, you have two
> > authors, one who keeps the program as a literate program and the
> > other one who keeps it as straight source, and they convert it whenever
> > they exchange
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:05:54PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> no problem and it can go into main. However, there has to be explicit
> permission for every file. Copyright exists even if not explicitly
> stated. If there is a file or group of files that does not have
> permission, then debian
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>> "mere aggregation" does not include linking. "mere
>> aggregation" implies *just* aggregation, and not combination.
>> It's what you do when you make a CD with a b
> > The simple answer is that the code must be in the preferred form of
> > the person distributing the code.
>
> But where does it say that in the GPL, or in the DFSG? That has too
> many funky implications for me to like that answer. If A gives code
> to B, the whole point of free software is
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:16:01AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> What I've got of copyright law is that fonts (the actual shape) is not
> protectable by copyright, at least not in the US. BDF fonts probably
> aren't protectable, because that's just description of the actual
> shape.
Thanks for c
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If the code is
>simply bits that will be spewed out to some device, that seems much
>more like a combination than linking.
This is derived from a similar message that I posted to
linux-usb-devel, in case anyone notices the similarity.
The 1
I'd say someone's probably put some thought into this and decided that this
is the best way (or at least the best way they considered) to word it.
Perhaps you can come up with a better option? 'machine readable source code'
doesn't really cut it... I'll just write my app in C and distribute the
ass
28 matches
Mail list logo
